Flegg v Hallet

Case [2014] QSC 278

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Flegg v Hallet [2014] QSC 278

PARTIES:

BRUCE STEPHEN FLEGG
(plaintiff)
v
GRAEME NORMAN HALLETT
(defendant)
SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(amicus curiae)

FILE NO/S:

BS 11629 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 – 17 October 2014; 20 October 2014; 22 October 2014

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

1.    I rule that s 36 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) is of no relevance to the questions which have thus far been raised in this case.

2.    I rule that s 8(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) does not prevent the defendant from challenging the accuracy of the lobbyist register tabled on 18 October 2012 before the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee of the Legislative Assembly.

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – THE LEGISLATURE – GENERAL MATTERS – PRIVILEGES – PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS – STATES – where the plaintiff tabled a lobbyist register at a hearing of a committee of the Legislative Assembly – where at the same hearing the plaintiff made a statement that the lobbyist register was "very accurate" – where the defendant subsequently published matter relating to the plaintiff including statements disputing the accuracy of the lobbyist register – where the plaintiff has sued the defendant in defamation as a consequence of these publications – where the defendant pleads that he did not believe the imputations arising from the publications to be untrue – where the defendant does not challenge the plaintiff's statement about the lobbyist register but challenges the accuracy of the lobbyist register – whether s 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) precludes a challenge to the accuracy of the lobbyist register – whether s 9(3) of the Act excludes the application of s 8 to the lobbyist register

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – THE LEGISLATURE – GENERAL MATTERS – power to compel answers and production of documents – where s 36(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) provides that no evidence can be given in any proceeding of an answer given before the Legislative Assembly or a parliamentary committee, or of the fact a document was produced to the Legislative Assembly or a parliamentary committee – where a literal reading of s 36(1) would represent a major alteration to what would otherwise be the state of the law, significantly reduce the field of operation of s 8(1), and negate the effect of s 9(3) – where the plaintiff, defendant, and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly submit that s 36(1) only comes into effect when a person is compelled to answer a question or produce a document to the Legislative Assembly or a parliamentary committee despite objection on a ground identified in s 34 of the Act – whether that intention should be imputed to the legislature – whether s 36 of the Parliament of Queensland Act

Continue reading Flegg v Hallet

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Flegg v Hallet [2014] QSC 278
Case
[2014] QSC 278
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flegg brought an action against Hallet for defamation following a publication by Hallet that questioned the accuracy of a lobbyist register that Flegg had tabled at a parliamentary committee hearing. Hallet raised the defence of honest opinion and also challenged the accuracy of the lobbyist register. Flegg submitted that Hallet was precluded from challenging the accuracy of the lobbyist register by virtue of s 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) and that s 9(3) of the Act excluded the application of s 8 to the lobbyist register. The court was required to determine the extent to which s 8 precluded a challenge to the accuracy of the lobbyist register and whether s 9(3) excluded the application of s 8 to the lobbyist register. The court also considered whether s 36 of the Act was relevant to the proceedings.

The court held that s 8(1) did not preclude a challenge to the accuracy of the lobbyist register, as it was not limited to challenges to the accuracy of answers given by witnesses before a parliamentary committee. The court also held that s 9(3) did not exclude the application of s 8 to the lobbyist register. The court found that s 36(1) only came into effect when a person was compelled to answer a question or produce a document to the Legislative Assembly or a parliamentary committee despite objection on a ground identified in s 34 of the Act, and that the intention should be imputed to the legislature. The court ruled that s 36 of the Act was of no relevance to the questions which had thus far been raised in the case.

The court ruled that s 36 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) was of no relevance to the questions which had thus far been raised in the case and that s 8(1) did not prevent Hallet from challenging the accuracy of the lobbyist register.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I rule that s 36 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) is of no relevance to the questions which have thus far been raised in this case.

2. I rule that s 8(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) does not prevent the defendant from challenging the accuracy of the lobbyist register tabled on 18 October 2012 before the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.